Bad ad for capitalism
The almighty row that has broken out within the Mumbai and Pune/Nashik-based Bajaj clan dominated for decades by automotive scooters, motorcycles and tri-wheelers tycoon Rahul Bajaj, shows up Indian capitalism in bad light. At issue is a division of the group’s assets between Rahul Bajaj who controls the mightily prosperous flagship corporate Bajaj Auto Ltd (BAL; market cap Rs.27,928 crore) and his cousins who run Bajaj Hindustan, Bajaj Electricals, and Mukand Steel among other companies. The umbrella or holding companies of these enterprises are Bacchraj & Co and Bajaj Sevashram and Jamnalal & Co, closely held firms in which Rahul’s brothers and cousins — Shishir, Shekhar, Madhur and Niraj own near equal shares. Under an informal arrangement which had stood the test of time, brother Shishir was permitted to have the run of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd (BHL) which until recently was struggling to stay afloat. But recently when against all expectation Shishir and his son Kushagra managed to turn the company around, Rahul who for mysterious reasons has the full support of his cousins, began to tinker with the shareholding of the holding companies, reportedly to acquire control of BHL. This provoked an open split and declaration of war within the Bajaj Group and provoked Shishir and Kushagra to file a petition before the Company Law Board demanding control of Bajaj Hindustan and partition of assets of the Bajaj Group.
The apprehensions of Shishir and Kushagra about the manipulative skills of the incumbent patriarch of the Bajaj clan are understandable because Rahul B is a pastmaster at playing the creeping acquisition game. Way back in the 1960s, the late H.K. Firodia and his family who actually built the first BAL automotive scooters manufacturing plant in Pune, were elbowed out of Bajaj Auto. Several decades later, Rahul mounted a covert campaign to oust the Firodias out of Bajaj Tempo in which BAL and the Bajaj clan owned 29 percent of the equity (cf. 26 percent of the Firodias). Fortunately for the latter the Germany-based Mercedes Benz gmbh which owned a 52 percent stake in Bajaj Tempo (since renamed Force Motors) refused to play ball.
And now true to form to accommodate his two sons Rajiv and Sanjiv, Rahul has set his sights on the suddenly prosperous BHL for Sanjiv, and is playing the pawns on the chessboard of the holding companies.
Quite obviously old habits die hard. But it’s perhaps high time this patriarch of the Bajaj clan who was recently elected to the Rajya Sabha, became aware that his manipulations are a bad advertisement for Indian capitalism.
Ruder than male
Once upon a time there was almost universal sympathy for women managers in Indian industry languishing on the lower rungs of the executive ladder as they suffered sexual discrimination and neglect in the male dominated corporate world. The expectation was that women managers at the top would bring a kinder and gentler touch to soften the primordial image of raw, me-first Indian capitalism. But now that women have broken through the glass ceiling and have risen to the very top of several blue-chip companies in India and abroad, this great expectation remains just that — an expectation. Recently on the occasion of Women’s Day (March 8), the Bangalore edition of the gimmicky Economic Times invited three of India’s top women CEOs — Naina Lal Kidwai (Hongkong Bank), Kiran Mazumdar (Biocon) and Vinita Bali (Britannia Industries) — to serve as guest editors for the day. They bled all over the pink pages of the daily mouthing politically correct opinions — especially about education — which no doubt endeared them to ET readers.
But wait a minute, not so fast. The truth is that these three women CEOs whose cause was much championed by your correspondent decades ago, are arguably the rudest and most unresponsive CEOs in Indian industry. Dozens of letters and messages from this publication soliciting royal audience and/or interviews have not merited a solitary reply between them. Admittedly some messages solicited advertising support in ingratiating tones. But even if this modest journal doesn’t meet their lofty standards to merit advertising largesse, it surely deserved a polite refusal. But no such civility.
The great expectation was that women at the top would soften, perhaps beautify, the ugly face of Indian capitalism. Alas, an expectation rudely belied.
Grammar-bending imprimatur
Given the alacrity at which hallowed rules of the English language are being bent in the Times of India — the country’s most authoritative and profitable newspaper — at the imperious command of Sameer Jain chairman of Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, the closely held company which owns ToI and several other newspapers, magazines, television and FM radio stations among other assets, Jain may well succeed where King Canute (who commanded the tides to turn back) failed. Suddenly in mid-March, Jain issued a (reportedly verbal) diktat that the first person singular which according to the elementary canons of English grammar is invariably written with a capital ‘I’ should henceforth be written in the lower case. Immediately and without any warning to readers, the editors of ToI (estb. 1838) implemented this imperious command leaving a great majority of the daily’s 7.4 million readers bemused, confused and some righteously indignant. Insider reports from within B&C say that Chairman Jain was irked about the proclivity of some celebrated ToI columnists exhibiting exaggerated self importance by over-employing the first person singular.
Nor is it surprising that the editors of the venerable daily leapt to execute this grammar-bending command. Memories are fresh in ToI about the time almost two decades ago, when to cut the daily’s celebrated editors to size, much in the fashion of the Roman emperor Caligula who appointed his horse proconsul of mighty Rome, Jain appointed B&C’s circulation manager acting editor when high profile editor Dileep Padgaonkar took a vacation.
At that time Jain reportedly wanted Padgaonkar to get the message that the ToI brand was infinitely greater than of its editor. Shortly thereafter Padgaonkar was peremptorily sacked. Little wonder none of the ToI editors want to argue about the latest grammar-bending imprimatur of this imperious media tycoon. History could repeat itself in ToI where the doctrine of primacy of the editor is history.